Why do some people, pro-democracy, assume that democracies grant freedom...

Why do some people, pro-democracy, assume that democracies grant freedom? By freedom I mean the unalienable rights granted to us by the constitution. Why do they imply I couldn’t find the same rights in other forms like aristocracy, or monarchy. As well as when democracy goes ballistic and strips all basic freedom, but then it wouldn’t be a democracy. The right to vote is not a human right, it’s only granted and guaranteed by documents like the US constitution. the idea that everyone has a say or a vote is a idealistic view because it assumes most of the population aren’t complete retards and know what they are doing, but that is not the case in most democracies. I’m not saying democracy is wrong, but it certainly isn’t the best.

Other urls found in this thread:

foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy
desuarchive.org/his/thread/4115959/#4124728
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I pretty much agree with you OP. I think rights like freedom of speech and the presumption of innocence are far superior than a vote. Most of the countries with the highest freedoms are monarchies while the most oppressive regimes are republics.

examples pls

this argument is garbage
lets look at western countries where monarchs are pretty much pretty bird that cant say anything and are there to look pretty
>sweden, netherlands, britain
western prosperous countries
now lets look at actual monarchies where monarchs are actual rulers
>saudi arabia, north korea (inb4 its not)
also aristocracy is shit because they are would be easy to demonize unlike faceless democratic establishment

*blocks your democracy*

foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy

This article might interest you

The TL;DR is that democracy is often complimentary to liberty, but it is not sufficient.

Domocracy is pretty much the opposite of liberty. 51% of people having the power to oppress the other 49% is clearly anti-liberty. Adding representatives to the mix only makes it worse.

liberty is a shit meme. it basically just means doing what i want people to do.

Name me a system that achieves more in terms of liberty. Meme systems like anarchism do not count.

Constitutions help, hell even making democratic votes require 60, 70 or 80 or more percent to agree to an action makes it better. Nothing seems to stop people from voting away their constitution though.

Having a benevolent ruler also can produce a high libertarian society. You almost inevitably get a tyrant after a while though.

OP here. Saudi Arabia is a desert shithole run by greedy oil merchants with a population of backwards semites. And North Korea, is a totalitarian dictatorship, which a monarchy can be but mostly isn’t. Pretty sure no one gave a fuck until the Age of Entitlement came about and people started thinking about themselves and crying about human rights. Truly the best form is a fascist monarchy

Aristocracies and Monarchies, by DESIGN, have to supercede the rights of the majority of the population to maintain power. Read a book. Nobody has argued that voting is an unalienable right.

That's true. It is a well written constitution that prioritizes individual freedom and a strong moral code based around the concept of individual freedom that grant freedom, not democracy itself - nonetheless democratic first world countries are closer to achieving that ideal than third world authoritarian islamic states.

>Having a benevolent ruler also can produce a high libertarian society. You almost inevitably get a tyrant after a while though.
What if they're immortal?

>Truly the best form is a fascist monarchy
"my perfect version of gommunism, the one that would work totally haven't been tried yet" tier deduction

That last bit was memeing. Mostly
It sorta worked in Spain

It seems pretty consistent that in human history those who have power use it to their own benefit. The vote is method of guaranteeing the rights given, because on average you can expect people to act in their perceived self interest.

Documents are useful because having somwthing written down makes it less malable, but the actual document is only as important as people make it and how they interpret it. Countries can guarentee rights without written document.

HDI isn't perfect but it's pretty good
>It isn't a real monarchy because i say so!

>kosciuszko
>a guy who saved american revolution/their president and tried to make poland liberal and non dysfunctional country
>wanting to seize power for himself
i dont think that absolutism would ever work in poland

I'd rule absolutism as well. It'd be a bit too much power to one man/family, etc. easily corruptible. Something like maybe council-like, s mix between oligarchy and aristocracy, and akin to the patriarchal system of the old catholic church.
Each head/bishop has an equal say, but ultimately the final power lies on the agreed upon leader/pope. Even number or odd number of members?

oligarchs just want to get rich, they suck shekels out of every eastern european country
why the fuck would you want them to take part in politics? so that they will never vote to tax themselves?

That’s why I wanted a mix of nobility with some aspect of oligarchy in that a select few rule. You control the land you live in. You are essentially the country. You wouldn’t want to hurt yourself, so you do things that benefit the nation and what benefits the nation benefits you. All this is idealistic, either way. None of this will come to fruition becaus man is too corrupt and (((they))) have a monopoly on (((democracy))). I’m just trying to an find alternative to democracy that can also grant the basic freedoms to its people.

HDI isnt perfect whatsoever lol. I agree weith your point but this info is irrelavent

Saudi Arabia is pretty great if you're an Arab muslim.

Agreed. Every individual has the right of self-determination, but not the right to speak for others. Voting is not some "freedom." Secession is. Contractual-Constitutionalism is the way to go.
I've made a lot of posts about this. Let me find one to copy/paste, since I have no time to participate in this thread.
desuarchive.org/his/thread/4115959/#4124728

The implicit point about democracy is the people legitimizes the democracy with their votes. Hence they are 'free'

>what are crowned republics?
Brainlet please

The idea that "The People" as a unit is the most ridiculous thing to come out of the Enlightenment.
"The People" need nothing. "The People" have no rights. The individual does.
I'll be back for this thread tomorrow, I've got something to do in the morning.

>realms count as monarchies
>Constitutional Monarchies involve the monarch
Nice try

>what is a constitution

Democracy, when tempered by a constitution, is the absolute best decision making apparatus for guaranteeing freedom.

Liechtenstein fuck you.

>constitutional monarchies = autocracies
>military dictatorships = republics

>Why do some people, pro-democracy, assume that democracies grant freedom?
>By freedom I mean the unalienable rights granted to us by the constitution.
So you don't mean freedom at all.

>Why do they imply I couldn’t find the same rights in other forms like aristocracy, or monarchy.
In theory you could. In reality it's never happened in two thousand years of human history.

>The right to vote is not a human right, it’s only granted and guaranteed by documents like the US constitution.
Correct. And the constitutions has power because everyone voted for it.

>the idea that everyone has a say or a vote is a idealistic view because it assumes most of the population aren’t complete retards and know what they are doing
Correct. That's why we have representative democracy instead of direct democracy like you are describing.

>I’m not saying democracy is wrong, but it certainly isn’t the best.
That's why we don't have direct democracy.

Then barring a change of heart or some outside power interference it would probably result in a high liberty society. Perhaps some ai could be programmed to rule a country with liberty as its highest priority.

I wish I could’ve rephrased it earlier but I meant rights, which some could interpret as freedom (i.e. freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press, arms, etc.)
true freedom is impossible unless you live in a lawless land.

And you can’t say everyone voted for it, the ones that drafted the constitution set it up with only the handful of delegates ratifying it.

>the ones that drafted the constitution set it up with only the handful of delegates ratifying it.

Everyone still accepted it, and built an entire nation around it's ideas.

The rights you are talking about are the byproduct of the collapse of monarchy.
You don't need freedom on speech in an aristocracy because it's the aristocracy's job to tell you what you should and should not say.

You don't need the freedom to assemble because the aristocracy will tell you when and where to assemble.

You don't need freedom of religion because God appointed your King and he will tell you what faith is correct.

You don't need freedom of the press because all you need is the state media.

You don't need the right to arms because the aristocracy will draft you when they need.

exc.

tl;dr Aristocracy is never a good thing.
Even dictatorship is better.